> For me the rejection of the Vedas represents an unequivocal argument
> against the Buddha as an Avatar. After all, and correct me if I am wrong,
> the purpose of the first Avatar was to recover the Vedas from the cosmic
> ocean to teach Brahma. Logic suffers if, several Avatars later, the
purpose
> has become diametrically opposite to that of the initial Avatar. It
simply
> does not make any sense to me.
Refer Mahabharata (which is dated much before Siddartha Gautama) as follows:
In Mahabharata Santi Parva 46.107, Bhishma informs Krishna, that it is
indeed Krishna who took the avatAra of "Aadi Buddha" in order to delude
Asura-s into atheism. Moreover, Bhishma speaks this in a past tense, which
mean that the Buddha avatara of the Lord already took place, much before the
Krishna avataram.
This is much before 3102 BCE, the traditional date of the Mahabharata war
and certainly much before the advent of Siddartha Gautama (560 BCE - 480
BCE). Then, therefore, Siddartha Gautama is not an avatAram of Mahavishnu.
People may continue to identify and worship Siddartha Gautama so, but I
think it is wise for those of us who know the facts to make better informed
desicions.
Regards,
Malolan